The Issues of Administrative Law in Relation to the Cancellation of the License of a Radio Station - Case Study Example

Law case Introduction Charter of rights and freedom plays an important role in Canada in upholding the rights and freedoms of the individuals. The freedom of expression is under section 2(b) of the charter of rights and freedom. The freedom of expression is guaranteed by the constitution and it guarantees free speech for the individuals. The administrative tribunals on the other hand have the powers of making decisions that deals with the matters of the constitution (Willes & Willes, 12). The Broadcast regulator has the powers of a regulator. It has the powers to cancel the licenses of the radio stations in case of unlawful activities. The radio stations are protected under section 2(b) which guarantees the freedom of the press. However, the Broadcast regulator can intervene and incase the radio stations are not in compliance with the law or are infringing on the rights of the others. The paper thus discusses the issues of charter and administrative law in relation to the cancellation of the license of a radio station by the broadcast regular after the use of sexist and disparaging remarks by its host. Discussion Argument in for the cancellation of the license The broadcast regulator is a tribunal and it has the powers of canceling the license of a radio station in case it operates contrary to the law. Although the radio stations are protected by section 2(b) of the Charter of rights and freedom, it has to ensure that its contents are in accordance with the legal provisions. The radio stations are also in business and it is supposed to act in a manner that is lawful (Willes, & Willes, 31) The radio station breached the provisions of section 2(b) which promotes the freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The use of disparaging and sexist remarks damages the public image of the celebrities involved. This is indicates that the business activities of the radio station is responsible for the defamation of character of the celebrities. The station also acted in bad faith when it ignored the complaints that had been raised by the celebrities affected by the sexist and disparaging remarks of the radio host. Since the radio station failed to stop the radio host from using the sexist and disparaging remarks it was right for the broadcast regulator to cancel the license of the station. As an administrative tribunal the Broadcast regulator had the right to intervene although the matter deals with the issues of the constitution. According to section 1 of the Charter Claims and Administrative Law, there should be a balance between the benefits and deleterious effects. The use of the sexist and disparaging remakes by the program host infringes on the rights of the celebrities. The actions of the program host contravened section 15 of the Charter Claims and Administrative Law which is against discrimination (Willes & Willes, 64). The action of the broadcast does on infringe on the freedom of the press and freedom of expression since it has the regulatory powers and intervene when a station contravenes the laws related to broadcasting. Arguments against the cancellation Section 2(b) guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of expression. This means that the radio hosts are free to express themselves and are fully protected by the freedom expression and freedom of the press. The Radio station is also in business and it did not contravene the business laws that would have given it competitive advantage over the other radio stations. The use of disparaging and sexist remarks when dealing with the celebrities does not contravene their rights as it could be as a result of how they present themselves to the public. It is due to this reason that the radio host has the right to express himself based on his judgment of the celebrities. In a democratic society like Canada, the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press are quite important. The actions of the regulator were undemocratic and against the freedom of the press and the freedom is expression. This is considering that section 2(b) highlights that freedom of expression is inherent to democracy. In a democratic society the individuals should be free to make any comments that they want. This is because in a democratic society the people are usually tolerant to diverse views of the individuals. On the other hand, the remarks were the opinions of the radio host and it was not that of the radio station. This means that the regulator made the wrong decision in cancelling the license of the station. The Broadcast regular is supposed to act on behalf of the government and in the best interest of the industry (Willes & Willes, 48). Cancelling the license of the station therefore amounts to interfering with the freedom of the press and freedom of expression by the government. This is also considering that canceling the license of the radio station was aimed at silencing the host and hence interfering with the freedom of expression. The cancellation of the license of the station is therefore against the spirit of democracy. Personal judgment The cancellation of the license of the radio station by the broadcast regulator was a right decision. The freedom of the press and freedom of expression under section 2(b) should not be used to infringe on the rights of the other citizens. The use of disparaging and sexist remarks is a form of discrimination that should not be tolerated in a democratic society. The use of sexist and disparaging remarks through the media is against section 15 as it amounts to discrimination. The radio station is also a business and it is illegal for business to misuse their powers to cause damages to the individuals (Willes & Willes, 68). The disparaging and sexist remarks had direct negative impacts on the celebrities. Such remarks have the ability of causing emotional and social problems. It is therefore the responsibility of the regulator to protect the members of the public from any malice by the media houses. The celebrities are just like any other Canadian citizens whose rights should be protected by the law and specifically the constitution. . The use of sexist and disparaging remarks has the potential of causing embarrassments to the celebrities. The celebrities highly value their image among the members of the public. The actions of the radio station were an indication that it was acting in bad faith. This is because it failed to act when the complaints were made against the disparaging and sexist remarks. Since the host continued using the sexist and disparaging remarks it meant that the rights of the celebrities were not being respected. This is also an indication that the radio station would have continued infringing on the rights of the celebrities. The willful promotion of hatred against certain individuals on the pretext of freedom of expression is illegal. The action of the radio host was promoting hatred against the celebrities. There was no remorse on the part of the radio host and the radio station itself since the complaints were ignored. The freedom of speech should not lead to the infringement of the rights of the other people or members of the general public. The media should not be used for the purposes of propagating sexism and disparaging remarks that causes discomfort to a group of people. The action of the radio station and the host were against the business conduct and the freedom of expression and hence the need for the cancellation of the license. Special rules applicable to administrative tribunals Some special rules apply to the administrative tribunals in Canada. This is for the purposes of ensuring that it is able to deliver on its mandate. The Administrative tribunals in most cases have to make decisions that deal with the matters of the constitution. This included the Broadcast regulator which is deals on the Charter issues. The Broadcast regulator has to solve the issues dealing with the constitution as it has to regulate the industry. As such, the Administrative Tribunals like the Broadcast regulator has implied power to decide on the question of law when it comes to the decision making process. The implied power is a special rule which enables the Administrative Tribunals to make decisions on the matters of the constitution (Willes, & Willes, 37). The special rule enabled the Broadcast regulator to cancel the license of the radio station although the main issue was based on constitutional matters. A judicial review is however required when the whenever a decision is made by the Administrative tribunal and it is for this reason that the radio station may take up the issues with the judiciary. The special rule also gives the Broadcast regulator which is Administrative tribunals the powers to make decisions with regards to the issues of the charter. This is despite the issues of the charter being linked to the rights issues which is a constitutional issue. This is an indication that not all the Administrative Tribunals in Canada can make decisions on the issues of law and constitution. References Willes, H., & Willes, A. (2012). Contemporary Canadian Business Law. Tenth Edition. McGraw-Hill. Read More